I understand that, I'm referring to what I see on other forums.On every forum I lurk on I see the same reaction:

"I compile with C::B."Reaction: "AHHH!! C::B is an IDE! GCC/MinGW/ButtFuckEgypt are compilers! AHHHH!!!!"

"I compile with MSVC."Reaction: crickets

The important distinction seems less important when people pick and chose where to stress the distinction.

"Can't a man even talk to himself without being interrupted?" -Krull(1983)"Through vengence I was born. Through war I was trained. Through love I was found. Through death I was released. Through release I was given a purpose." -- Specter Phoenix"Programming == AWESOME the rest is just tools to accomplish it."END OF LINE

At least in the past, I get the impression that Visual Studio traditionally has always been associated with Microsoft's suite of compilers. Code::Blocks can be obtained bundled with MinGW in Windows, but you otherwise provide whatever compiler you want.

I really don't know why anyone cares at all about this terminology. It has zero impact on anything.

I had a terminology debate (on the implications of users) on "hidden" vs "Deleted". A coworker was saying that "He knows what delete this company means." Yeah, but we're not deleting the companies (which would affect historical business records attached to those companies). We're hiding them by adding a "is_hidden" column. Hidden vs deleted is a pretty big distinction.

Nobody is going "Use this compiler to build this code" and going "omg, should I download Visual Studio, or just Visual Studio's compiler?!" Everyone knows what you're talking about. Visual Studio is a brand. It means way more than just an IDE.

-----sig:“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

I don't give a flying fig fruit whether or not someone says I compile with MSVC, because the compiler and the ide have been integrated since VS was created. It's a standalone monolithic program. Have you ever tried to install cl without msvc, or msvc without cl? Have fun with that. However with Code::Blocks you have to separately install a compiler, whether it's bundled with CB or not. This clearly means Code::Blocks IS NOT A $#!@ING COMPILER!

"Can't a man even talk to himself without being interrupted?" -Krull(1983)"Through vengence I was born. Through war I was trained. Through love I was found. Through death I was released. Through release I was given a purpose." -- Specter Phoenix"Programming == AWESOME the rest is just tools to accomplish it."END OF LINE

-----sig:“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Sorry Edgar, but Visual Studio, according to your own standards is NOT the compiler. TO state that it is, and Code::Blocks is not when BOTH use a separate program to do the actual compiling is hypocritical.

I personally have never met ANYONE that uses Code::Blocks with anything other than MinGW, so to me, it's a moot point, no different than the integrated suite that is VS.

I DO understand what you mean, and technically you are correct, but I also feel that I can accurately state that "I compile with Code::Blocks" as I click on it to compile, what it uses under the hood and whether the two are integrated or separate units is a moot point to me. The actual dirty work is done by MinGW, but I don't use MinGW, I use Code::Blocks, IT USES MinGW. It IS important to understand what is doing the compiling for obvious reasons, but I don't see how it is important to stress over getting into a convoluted mess of IDE, compiler, linker etc... I call the whole lot "the compiler". I will go into those details you mention when it is important to say so. Otherwise, I don't wish to confuse newbies any more than I have to.

Anyhow... now you know how I feel in religious discussions when people don't grasp what I am trying to say.

Neil, your point was more eloquent than my remarks, but your post states much better than I did the point I was trying to get across.

"Can't a man even talk to himself without being interrupted?" -Krull(1983)"Through vengence I was born. Through war I was trained. Through love I was found. Through death I was released. Through release I was given a purpose." -- Specter Phoenix"Programming == AWESOME the rest is just tools to accomplish it."END OF LINE

IIRC Code::Blocks uses its own build system, so no intermediate "make", is that right? It's been a long time I've last used it. I tend to run CMake from QtCreator, so I have a separate build tool (in fact, there are two of them, as CMake invokes make which is invoking the compiler) and a seperate IDE. Android-Studio invokes gradle, so it's the same there (no, gradle is not a compiler). Now, what about Visual-Studio's IDE? Does the IDE invoke the compiler directly? I think it does, doesn't it? So Visual Studio and CodeBlocks would have something in common that would set them apart from Android Studio. So how about that these are IDEs with integrated build tools, but not compilers?

Language is important. Clarity is important. Distinction is important.

Flooding someone with information that simply is not needed, is not important, it is pointless. I compile using Code::Blocks. I don't use MinGW directly any more than someone uses Microsoft's compiler directly, but if I did, I would say I compile with it. Just like I compile using Code::Blocks!

Now if you need to know the dirty details of precisely what does the compiling, what does the linking etc... I will go into that. But otherwise, there's simply no need.

If you want to get technical, MinGW doesn't compile, it sends instructions to the CPU on what to do. Heck, lets get really technical and start talking about bits and high and low voltages that make them up?

Now I DO understand where you're coming from. I just do not see the need to constantly correct people with these sorts of details when it is not needed.

VS is not a compiler. C::B is not a compiler. End of story. Like I said, feel free to uninstall MinGW and compile with C::B to your heart's extent. But you won't, because you can't, because C::B is not a compiler, and it is physically impossible to compile with Code::Blocks. Full stop.

I'm tired of people not understanding they can compile all they want without an IDE.

The current state of modern programming?

"Can't a man even talk to himself without being interrupted?" -Krull(1983)"Through vengence I was born. Through war I was trained. Through love I was found. Through death I was released. Through release I was given a purpose." -- Specter Phoenix"Programming == AWESOME the rest is just tools to accomplish it."END OF LINE